At councils’ Heathrow runway hearing in High Court, DfT wants to get case struck out

Date added: January 19, 2017

Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils together with Greenpeace UK have bought a judicial review against the DfT to the High Courts of Justice. At the hearing the councils said the government’s decision to back plans for the 3rd runway “frustrates the expectations of councils and residents” who have received “clear, unequivocal and repeated promises” over the years that it would never be built. The councils also challenge the decision on the basis that the government has failed to recognise the project’s air quality impacts, which would raise pollution to unlawful levels. Lawyers for the DfT have asked the judge, Mr Justice Cranston, to strike out the case now. The DfT argument (by James Maurici QC) is the case should not be heard until after the consultation on the National Policy Statement (NPS) on aviation is published – which could be anything from this year to 2018. The DfT is hoping to make the case that this is a “preliminary and insuperable obstacle” to the claim proceeding. The councils and their lawyers say that instead of trying to get the case delayed, it is vital that the issues need to be dealt with before, not after, the NPS consultation. That would otherwise be “flawed at the outset and a huge waste of time, energy and public money.” A decision given at an unknown later date.
.Tweet

The first day of the challenge from councils against the third runway expansion has begun with controversies

19 JAN 2017 (Get West London)

An attempt by campaigners to bring a legal challenge against a third runway at Heathrow faces a serious “obstacle”, the High Court has heard.

Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils together with Greenpeace UK have bought a judicial review to the High Courts of Justice today (January 19).

It claims that the government’s decision to back plans for the runway “frustrates the expectations of councils and residents” who have received “clear, unequivocal and repeated promises” over the years that it would never be built.

It also challenges the decision on the basis that the government allegedly failed to recognise the project’s unlawful air quality impacts.

Case ‘shouldn’t be heard until next consultation’

But lawyers for the Transport Secretary want Mr Justice Cranston to strike out the case now.

They say it should not be heard until after the consultation on the National Policy Statement (NPS) on aviation is published – which could be anything from this year to 2018.

James Maurici QC said there was a “preliminary and insuperable obstacle” to the claim proceeding.

Zac Goldsmith given new role in helping councils battle Heathrow expansion in the courts
Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven has said the case is being brought because the government had “not done their homework” on London’s illegal levels of air pollution.

“There is no good reason to depart from the repeated government promise that, because of the insuperable environmental problems, there should be no third runway,” he said.

“Since the ClientEarth case it’s become even clearer that an expanded Heathrow is bound to make air pollution worse.

“The government has not attempted to meet our case.

“Instead it is mounting a technical argument to strike it out, arguing that it cannot be brought until there is a formal decision, preceded by a consultation, to support Heathrow in a National Policy Statement.”

“We want to challenge now because the consultation, without dealing first with air pollution, would be flawed at the outset and a huge waste of time, energy and public money.”

The hearing is likely to continue into Friday with a decision given at a later date.